On the idea of considering manuscripts as objects and the RDA definition of object ("A three-dimensional artefact ..."), I suppose a manuscript would be "3-D" in a technical sense since it's composed of atoms and therefore has thickness, but I think they're thought of as 2-D, at least single sheets are.

On the idea of considering manuscripts as objects and the RDA definition of object ("A three-dimensional artefact ..."), I suppose a manuscript would be "3-D" in a technical sense since it's composed of atoms and therefore has thickness, but I think they're thought of as 2-D, at least single sheets are.

−

Also, what about an art work (e.g. a painting)? A piece of calligraphy? These are works. In the same sense, just as a painting is a work, a manuscript (the physical item) is a work separate from the work represented by the text within the manuscript. This is particularly important for formal manuscripts, such as illuminated manuscripts. MAXWELL, SACO liaison (but speaking personally), 18 August 2011.

+

Also, what about an art work (e.g. a painting)? A piece of calligraphy? These are works. In the same sense, just as a painting or a calligraphic design is a work, a manuscript (the physical item) is a work separate from the work represented by the text within the manuscript. This is particularly important for formal manuscripts, such as illuminated manuscripts. MAXWELL, SACO liaison (but speaking personally), 18 August 2011.

=== #3. Consider ''events'' as ''expressions''? ===

=== #3. Consider ''events'' as ''expressions''? ===

Revision as of 18:49, 18 August 2011

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

General comments

I share the British Library’s concern about expanding Group 3 beyond the FRBR model’s parameters. I am not entirely averse to this expansion but I do think it warrants careful consideration, as the prospective conflation of Item with Object and the transfer of Conferences to Events hints at. This is not the first time that a particular detail in one of the FR models intersects and potentially conflicts with its treatment elsewhere, to wit, the Place of publication attribute in FRBR and the Place entity in Group 3 (see BL’s comments on question ‘#1” for much better exploration that I can provide). In contrast to the proposed limitation of Time to exclude birth and death dates, I am intrigued by the possibility of converting this attribute into a relationship. I do not know where this might end, but I think it warrants exploration rather than dismissal. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

More generally, I have concern about the overall thrust of the discussion paper. It is obvious that the FRSAD report, in taking a completely new tack in addressing the Group 3 entities, treating the topic at the level of abstraction of Thema and Nomen, has failed to meet the need for an entity framework in parallel with the other FR models. The discussion paper then, is attempting to fill the gap by addressing the need for specific entities, in both the FR family and in RDA. I raise this issue, not to preclude us from exploring the possibilities it raises but to ensure we are aware of what we are doing in conducting such exploration, particularly in the area of potential future conflict as the FR reconciliation process proceeds. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

Just a reminder that comments from the SAC subcommittee on RDA will be coming separately to John Attig for him to synthesize into a combined ALA response. The SAC subcommittee has an internal deadline of September 14 for its comments. I will make comments below, but they are my personal opinion, not the expression of the SAC subcommittee. Bob Maxwell, SAC Liaison, 18 August 2011

Genre/Form should be included in the proposal. MAXWELL, SAC Liaison (but speaking for himself), 18 August 2011.

Suggested process for adding content to RDA

#1. Declare for RDA that subjects exist only at the work level, or allow subjects of expressions?

This goes to the heart of the complexity in expanding the Group 3 entities beyond the basic model offered in FRBR. It also touches on some of the inconsistencies in addressing genre and subject over the years. I am thinking of instances where an Expression is a translation and I have seen “name/form” subject headings with the form subdivisions “Translations into [language]” (see the Latin version of Alice’s adventures in Wonderland at OCLC #1212072, LCCN 64023114). This clearly parallels the Work level treatment of the application of the form subdivision “Film adaptation” (at least I think this would be assigned at the Work level). I am also thinking of specialized instances where personal provenance to an individual item is tracked, not just through a note but through an access point. I think it is wise to explore this and that guidance is warranted but we would be moving RDA beyond the scope of FRBR. I am not one to advocate slavish adherence to a model but we should proceed cautiously. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

I think any entity should be able to be linked to any other entity by any type of relationship appropriate, so if there is a relationship between a subject entity and any of the WEMI entities we should not be prevented by the rules from expressing it. There should be no declaration that subjects can only exist at the work level.

Examples:
An expression might have lengthy introductory matter about the author or extensive annotations about the work. Or an expression of a science fiction work has a lengthy introduction (or significant notes) detailing the science concept underlying the work. The relationship of any of these subject entities would be to the expression, not the work itself.

A manifestation might contain extensive information about the author in the blurb, not present in the work itself. Option should exist to link the manifestation entity to the subject entity (the person).

An item might have extensive manuscript annotations on any topic, but likely related in some way to the work, expression, or manifestation. Another example might be an extra-illustrated book, where the owner takes apart the book and inserts extensive illustrations. These are not uncommon. The relationship of the subject entity of any of this added material (manuscript or extra illustrations) would be to the item, not the W E or M.

MAXWELL, SACO liaison (but speaking personally), 18 August 2011.

#2. Should object be expanded to include item?

Again, a vital issue regarding the expansion of Group 3 beyond the model. I am not certain of the full implications of this modification. I am particularly concerned about the case of manuscripts under such a regime, as raised under point 'c' of the paper, but am not sufficiently well-versed to articulate the details of that concern. I see a significant challenge under such an equivalence of Item and Object in clearly articulating that the content of a manuscript is an Item in a "collapsed chain" of Manifestation/Expression/Work entities, where the physicality of the manuscript is an Object. I can wrap my head around those differences when Item and Object are distinct, but lose my way if we are saying they are equivalent. I think that point 'e' of the paper, advocating for further discussion is fully warranted. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

On the idea of considering manuscripts as objects and the RDA definition of object ("A three-dimensional artefact ..."), I suppose a manuscript would be "3-D" in a technical sense since it's composed of atoms and therefore has thickness, but I think they're thought of as 2-D, at least single sheets are.

Also, what about an art work (e.g. a painting)? A piece of calligraphy? These are works. In the same sense, just as a painting or a calligraphic design is a work, a manuscript (the physical item) is a work separate from the work represented by the text within the manuscript. This is particularly important for formal manuscripts, such as illuminated manuscripts. MAXWELL, SACO liaison (but speaking personally), 18 August 2011.

#3. Consider events as expressions?

As with #2, there are complexities here that warrant further discussion as advocated in point 'e' of the paper. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

Some events are capable of creating a work (i.e. authorship) at least in our current cataloging culture--for example, a conference--while others are not--for example, a tsunami. Unless we're willing to say a conference or meeting can't produce/author a document, that type of event needs to remain in Group 2. MAXWELL, SACO liaison (but speaking personally), 18 August 2011.

#4. Include time as an entity?

The BL has reservations on this point, and I would advocate for full exploration of its implications for time as an attribute as the BL has articulated in its response. I am intrigued by the possibilities here, but am equally concerned that this detail may “break” the models. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

I do not understand why LC feels "the definition [of time] needs to be a narrow one, excluding dates of birth and death [etc.]." Why? Either make Time an entity or make it an attribute, but don't make it both. We already have that problem with place--in some places it's an attribute and in other places it's an entity. That's sloppy.

By the way, I think time is actually an attribute of RELATIONSHIPS, not of entities--for example, if a person has a relationship with a corporate body, time (the dates he/she was related to the body) is not an attribute of the person OR the corporate body. It's an attribute of his/her relationship with the body. When was he/she an employee of the university? That's an attribute or the employer-employee relationship. But FRBR and RDA don't admit that relationships have attributes. I think they should.

MAXWELL, SACO liaison (but speaking personally), 18 August 2011.

Impact of adding subject relationships to RDA

#5. Impact on chapters 18/19-22, 24/25, 29, and Appendices I, J, and K, and possibly their instructions on Source

#6. Source will need to be examined for chapters 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11 for Group 1 and Group 2 entities when used as subjects

If Source is to be reconsidered, this will likely have import on the MLA proposal we are looking to advance regarding container as source. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

#7. RDA may just suggest following its own guidance on those entities... or may wish to allow use of thesauri/lists ... when such entities are used as subjects of works

#8. Re-examination of "core-ness" with regard to all entities when they are in the "role" of the subject of a work

#10. Need to return to "Constructing access points" for manifestations and items, so that they may be used as subjects

#11. Should consider adding Time

#12. Need to review the impact of work needed for Appendix K

#13. Need to add information to Appendix J on descriptive relationships that can also be considered subject relationships ...

#14. Need to add general information about the subject relationship between Group 2 entities and works in chapter 18 and perhaps in chapters 19-22

#15. Need to write general instructions for chapter 23

Possible content for the "Identifying" chapters

A. Concept

B. Object

I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation of where to place a class of things. A single cow is an object, what though is the thema category of cows? Likewise, what of substances like iron? I am told both are Objects, but much as a Manifestation is an abstraction of Item, to my mind these are a level of abstraction above Object (but not sufficiently abstract so as to cross over to Concept). The definition here needs to be clarified to address this (or a new thema proposed). MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

As to the Scope, I agree that reconciling Object with Item is necessary. I am intrigued by the BL’s articulation that "Vases, Roman" constitutes an Object with the "Portland Vase" an Item as an instance of that Object. (Even though they are employing Object in the abstract, a treatment I decry above.) MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

C. Event

Under C. Event (pages 6-7), is the idea still to allow the access point for a conference, etc. to be used as part of the authorized access point for a work? Randall, 6/10/11

D. Place

I would note that this is yet another instance where Dates is proposed as an attribute, complicating its possible treatment as an Entity as offered elsewhere in the paper. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

E. Time

I am not certain I understand the BL’s response that "For Group 3 the time facet could be intrinsic to whichever scheme is preferred." This is true for temporal subdivisions but there are instances where a time is in and of itself the subject of a work – a work dealing with a specific decade, a specific year, or a specific day – for which we have such specific subject headings. As I consider this, what is the differentiating factor between conceptualizing Prohibition as an Event (although the authority record is as a Concept) and the 1920s as a Time, between The Summer of Love as an Event and Summer 1967 as a Time. There clearly are differences, but how are such differences to be articulated at the conceptual level? Does a given time have relevance outside its use as an attribute for other entities? Conversely, how do we conceptualize an event as a surrogate in part for a given time? MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16

Example model for proposals for chapters on relationships

Related concept

British Library response (6JSC/LC rep/3/BL rep response)

I don’t understand the BL’s response under 'II. D.' that Places that are a jurisdiction can be in Group 2 and because they are in Group 2 can have other useful attributes such as coordinates, where non-jurisdiction places strictly can’t. Mount Everest can’t have coordinates but New York City can? I agree that jurisdictions may have useful attributes not applicable to non-jurisdiction places, but coordinates is not in that set of jurisdiction exclusive attributes. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/16